Cited by 20HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSex work and related issues

HIV Partner Notification Values and Preferences Among Sex Workers, Fishermen, and Mainland Community Members in Rakai, Uganda: A Qualitative Study

Open access
Quinn, Caitlin, Nakyanjo, Neema, Ddaaki, William, Burke, Virginia M., Hutchinson, Naadiya, Kagaayi, Joseph, Wawer, Maria J., Nalugoda, Fred +1 more·2018·AIDS and Behavior

Abstract

HIV partner notification involves contacting sexual partners of people who test HIV positive and referring them to HIV testing, treatment, and prevention services. To understand values and preferences of key and general populations in Rakai, Uganda, we conducted 6 focus group discussions and 63 in-depth interviews in high prevalence fishing communities and low prevalence mainland communities. Participants included fishermen and sex workers in fishing communities, male and female mainland community members, and healthcare providers. Questions explored three approaches: passive referral, provider referral, and contract referral. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using a team-based matrix approach. Participants agreed that passive referral was most suitable for primary partners. Provider referral was acceptable in fishing communities for notifying multiple, casual partners. Healthcare providers voiced concerns about limited time, resources, and training for provider-assisted approaches. Options for partner notification may help people overcome barriers to HIV serostatus disclosure and help reach key populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10461-018-2035-3

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients' main reason for preferring simple patient referral was to maintain privacy.

    “Similar to health workers, patients' main reason for preferring simple patient referral was to maintain privacy (124, 128, 129).”

    From Updated recommendations for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis) and new recommendations on syphilis testing and partner services (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The Results section on passive referral (page unavailable) says participants valued it for demonstrating faith and building trust in intimate relationships, not for maintaining privacy. The Results section on provider referral instead associates anonymity with preference for provider referral, particularly among sex workers and fishermen. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Health workers indicated that to deliver services effectively they would need support, including training, data management tools, funding, more staff time, and supportive policies.

    “Health workers also indicated that to deliver services effectively they would need support, including training, data management tools, funding, more staff time allocated to complete certain tasks, and supportive policies (124, 127, 132-139).”

    From Updated recommendations for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis) and new recommendations on syphilis testing and partner services (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The Results (Assisted partner notification; page unavailable) report healthcare providers’ concerns about limited time, resources, and training. The Discussion (page unavailable) likewise identifies training and staff time as implementation considerations. Our copy does not identify data-management tools, funding specifically, or supportive policies as needs indicated by these workers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Patients in many studies mentioned stigma due to being exposed as having been unfaithful, as well as blame and embarrassment, as motives not to want to notify sexual partners.

    “Additionally, patients in many studies mentioned stigma due to being exposed as having been unfaithful, as well as blame and embarrassment, as motives not to want to notify sexual partners (119, 124, 126, 136, 138, 141, 143, 149, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166).”

    From Updated recommendations for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis) and new recommendations on syphilis testing and partner services (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    In Results > Passive referral (page unavailable), participants described fear of being accused of promiscuity and blamed for bringing HIV into a relationship; the paper says that blame deterred some people from notifying partners. The Discussion also identifies social stigma as a disclosure challenge. The cited study does not report embarrassment as a motive or itself establish that patients reported these motives in many studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another common issue was the difficulty of retrieving and/or having the correct contact information for all sexual partners, in addition to notifications being ignored.

    “Another common issue was the difficulty of retrieving and/or having the correct contact information for all sexual partners, in addition to notifications being ignored (123, 124, 127, 132, 137, 138, 140, 144, 149, 151, 152, 155, 158, 167-170).”

    From Updated recommendations for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis) and new recommendations on syphilis testing and partner services (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The Discussion says that missing or unreliable contact information makes non-primary partners difficult to notify, and the Results describe difficulty obtaining names and tracing partners (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not say that partners ignored notifications; being unreachable or not notified is not the same as ignoring a notification. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The most commonly mentioned barrier was individuals' concerns about potential harm or other negative consequences, even despite very little evidence of actual harm.

    “Overall, the most commonly mentioned barrier was individuals' concerns about potential harm or other negative consequences (e.g. fear of relationship break-up, violence, loss of social and financial support) (108, 124, 128-130, 136, 140-144, 146-164), even despite very little evidence of actual harm.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]World Health Organization Guidelines on HIV self-testing and partner notification: supplement to consolidated guidelines on HIV testing services Geneva World Health Organization 2016 Available at: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/vct/hiv-self-testing-guidelines/en/ accessed 1 Jan 2017 27977094
  2. [22]Sharma M Smith J Farquar C Ying R Cherutich P Wamuti B Modeling the cost-effectiveness of assisted partner notification for HIV in Kenya Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections Seattle, USA 2017
  3. [30]Plotkin M Kahabuka C Amuri M Njozi M Maokola W Mlanga E Effective, high-yield HIV testing for partners of newly-diagnosed persons in Tanzania Poster session presented at: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2017 Feb 13–16 Seattle, WA, USA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quinn, C., Nakyanjo, N., Ddaaki, W., Burke, V. M., Hutchinson, N., Kagaayi, J., Wawer, M. J., Nalugoda, F., & Kennedy, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Rakai Health Sciences Program (UG)
Corresponding author
Quinn, Caitlin
Venue
AIDS and Behavior
Published
2018-01-25
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
3407-3416
ISSN
  • 1090-7165 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3254
OpenAlex
W2785843718
Cited by
19
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AIDS and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • National Institutes of Health (P30AI094189)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH105313)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
Keywords
HIV partner notification, provider referral, sex workers, fishermen, fishing communities, key populations, HIV status disclosure, Rakai, Uganda
MeSH terms
Workforce, Adult, Female, Fisheries, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Referral and Consultation, Sexual Partners, Uganda, HIV Infections, Contact Tracing, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Sex Workers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review